About Me

Name: lge
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Obama -- Insane Mussolini for Morons

Obama's changing from just malicious, dictatorial and conceited to actually crazy. (Well, all absolute rulers tend to make that transformation while in power.)

Two cases in point: he will have a new attack jet made in Brazil. A military airplane, made in a foreign country? The Air Force has selected Embraer’s A-29 Super Tucano as the Light Air Support aircraft.


And he refuses to help alleviate our critical dependence on Arabs' oil, rejecting the Keystone Pipeline and giving lying excuses for his "decision."

The man is certifiable.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Flouting the Fuehrer on the Keystone Cop-out

Obama's malicious and destructive decree on the Keystone pipeline is coming in for some of the contempt it deserves -- because it's so patently idiotic. U.S. Representative Michael Burgess says, “Canada likes us. Let us get our energy from Canada.” Robert J. Samuelson said, “President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity.”

Wee need the oil. Canada has the oil, and they want to sell it to us.We need jobs, and the pipeline will create jobs.We need to pay less money to Arabs, and the Canadian oil will help us do that.

So why is Obama cutting off our own nose to spite our face? Is it just sheer malice, an "up yours" to spite the whole country? Is it anti-capitalist, anti-industrial bigotry, the disease of infantile leftists? Is it the environmentalist “global warming” mass delusion? 

Best news: Canadians may reroute the Keystone pipeline, thus obviating the necessity of gaining King Obama's consent. It feels so great to flout the Fuehrer! YAY! 

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mussolini for Morons Doesn't Need Congress

Here's one commentator's opinion of Obama's brazen affront to the Constitution:

On his radio show last night, Mark Levin said that President Barack Obama has caused a “constitutional crisis” by appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board . . . without going through the constitutionally required Senate confirmation process.

“We have a constitutional crisis," Levin said. "It is in fact a constitutional crisis."

"The President of the United States is trashing the Constitution now day in and day out,” Levin said.


Anyone could have seen this coming. Obama has total contempt for this country, its traditions, its laws, its allies. Everything he says is calculated and manipulative, solely designed to get his way. He thinks he's God's gift to humanity, and his whole idea of government is bashing people (and races, and countries) he doesn't like, and rewarding his cronies and homies. He's a snot-nosed, conceited little Mussolini for Morons -- because only half-wits and morons would ever have bought his line of jive.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mussolini for Morons Strikes Again

Get a load of this manipulative, infantile, nasty rhetoric from Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina:

[The] extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. . . No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

Yep, that's the Republican platform all right. Plus "Starve Granny to death," "Eat puppies and stomp kitties," and a lot of other dirty planks in the platform.

Can't Democrats EVER argue on the issues? (Answer: No.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dear China -- May We Have Our Factories Back?


News Item:  "Surveys shows China manufacturing slowing further"

I've got a great idea. Since China's manufacturing is slowing down, why don't we ask them if we can have our factories back?

Seriously. All the wise-guy pundits and pseudo-experts who keep diagnosing our problems and emitting solemn pronouncements, refuse to face one fact: We simply have to have our manufacturing sector back again. We can't allow other, low-wage countries to produce the preponderance of our goods, while we only consume.

We produce little, we consume much, and the difference we finance by going into debt up to our eyeballs. That's madness. 

In addition, the "arsenal of democracy" which used to be our manufacturing capacity, is now the arsenal of Red China. And the people in charge of our country, who look at that situation with complete insouciance, must be stark raving mad.

All the half-witted retards who keep prattling about Smoot-Hawley and "protectionism" and such-like crap, are living in the prehistoric past. They don't have any solution for the debacle we're headed straight into. They just keep patting themselves on the back because they're so righteous and would never interfere with free trade or the flood of goods from low-wage countries. But they have no clue on how to keep us from going over a cliff. They're just basking in their economic holiness -- which is not a sound economic policy.

This is a massive betrayal by our economic "intellectuals" -- a trahison des twerps. Après all the half-witted pundits, le déluge!


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A New Christmas Song -- give a listen

To whom it may concern: go listen to my very own Christmas song, "A Carol For Children," at



The touching lyrics are from an Ogden Nash poem (used by permission of Little, Brown).

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Fast and furious" is the epitome of our Grifter-In-Chief

"Fast and furious" was a deep game to manipulate public opinion and get what Obama wanted. The conniving Obama administration thought, "We'll allow a flood of illegal weapons to get into Mexico, and then when the weapons show up, we'll become outraged and demand stronger gun laws." That is our two-faced underhanded President, who deserves to be impeached for his breach of faith with the American people.

Fast and Cretinous is typical of Obama's whole approach to governing, in fact his whole approach to life. He never talks without giving off the sense that he's talking calculatingly, just for effect; that he's manipulating his listeners. He'll say whatever it takes to get what he wants, and he always uses just one criterion: "Will they buy this line?"

He showed he would say anything to get Obamacare passed -- emitting the most outrageous slanders of doctors and insurance companies, and making the most asinine, ludicrous promises about the pie in the sky that would result from the collectivization of the medical industry.

Every time he talks, he is at once infantile, mouthing the most childish simplicities, and manipulative, underhanded, calculated. He's always deploring scapegoats, siccing his audience on his chosen enemy, winking and elbowing his listeners in the ribs with his precious "You love me because I'm just so adorable" attitude.

He sounds like a dim-witted Mussolini bamboozling school kids -- a Mussolini for morons.


 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What "Occupy Wall Street" Is All About


First of all, it's a way for all the conceited young no-goods to say, "We are holier than thou."

But it has a more practical purpose too: to divert attention from the role of Congress in crashing the economy. By railing against the rich 1%, bankers, mortgage-lenders, derivatives-traders, etc., they can divert attention from the fact that it was government's affirmative-action policies in mortgages (policies which they didn't openly announce or advertise truthfully) that ran the housing industry onto the rocks. Cretins like Barney Frank would never, ever give up their goal of affirmative action in mortgages, no matter how devastating that policy was to the economy.

So now the punks & creeps of Squatting On Wall Street want to change the subject and dominate the debate by holding a months-long temper tantrum out in the open. The more they make themselves and the evil, oppressive bankers the news, the less people remember that it wasn't bankers, but left-wing social engineers that brought on the debacle. It's sort of a Nazi Brown-Shirt technique: if you can't win the debate by arguments, win it by a show of brute force in the public arena.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Occupy-ists are the est of protest movements

What the Occupy Whatever crowd want most of all, it seems, is to assert their First Amendment rights. They want to make very clear that they have a right to say what they want to say (wherever they want to say it, whenever they want to say it).

But what's their point? They yammer on and on about how "We have a right to say what we want to say," but what do they want to say? What's their message, beyond "We have a right to advance our message"?

They're like the old "est" cult or psychological  movement -- the one where people went to a meeting and had to stay there until they "got it." It was very important that they "get it," in fact it was essential that they "get it," but they never told the people what "it" is. You had to figure out what "it" is yourself.

That's the same message as the Occupy-ists. You're supposed to get their message, but they don't have a message. You have to intuit their message by psychic divination. They're the est of protest movements.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Occupy-ists: "It all belongs to us! And we're in charge!"


Here's a link to a video of one of the Occupy parasites getting dinged by a rubber bullet:

 Dinged why? Who knows -- but it's fun to watch. I hope it did him a little bit of no good.

Note the graffiti that shows up about halfway through, on a pedestal or stone object of some kind. It says, "This is ours."


Pic

Everything is yours, isn't it, Occupy-ists? Your creed is, "Everything belongs to us. We're in charge here. We own this Burger King. We own this street and we can choose to block it.  Because we're just so much holier and more deserving than thou."  Puke. 

In London, a similar bunch of barbarians laid claim to public property:
A group. . .  made a makeshift camp in Trafalgar Square. Anti-capitalist ‘occupy’ activists put up 20 tents at the foot of Nelson’s Column.

They said they were planning to stay for as ‘long as possible’ and chanted ‘Whose square? Our square.’
Whose square? Not yours, cretins. You rotten, spoiled brats aren't in charge just because you squat, and protest, and play drums and tell everybody you're holier than them. You juvenile, retarded Brownshirt  wanna-be's do well to be in charge of your own bodily functions.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Our President Is Very Swaive And Deboner


France's President Sarkozy has a new baby daughter. And as news reports state, that's where the trouble started:

What was meant to be a joke resulted in a major insult. Barack Obama tried to be funny at the G20 this week but nobody laughed.

Obama told his global audience,    “I want to make mention that this is our first meeting since the arrival of the newest Sarkozy, and so I want to congratulate Nicolas and Carla on the birth of Giulia... And I informed Nicolas on the way in that I am confident that Giulia inherited her mother’s looks rather than her father’s, which I think is an excellent thing.”

Nobody laughed.

Oh, he's smooth! He's (as we used to say) "swaive and deboner." Nothing gauche or dorky about our brilliant community organizer, is there?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Gives A Crap If We Leave Iraq?


Here's what I think about fighting the Islamic barbarians: kill the enemy, but don't try to "nation-build."

We can't construct a society in Iraq or Afghanistan. There's no LEGO nation-constructing kit we can use. A country has to build itself. We should concentrate on knocking off the identified enemy, using drones, troops, or whatever is necessary; but we can't adopt various countries to raise.

If leaving Iraq puts us in a worse strategic position, I'd like to suggest a way to make up for it: end all immigration of Muslims, i.e., citizens of Arab and Muslim countries, into the U.S. That will ease the burden on our counter-espionage and security agencies, and present the medieval Muslim madmen with less of an opportunity to attack us. The gain from such a measure will more than make up for what we lose by leaving Iraq.

Let's concentrate on the war-making aspects of fighting the Taliban and such fanatics, and leave aside the construction and hospitality ends of the business.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Occupy Whatever -- feeding frenzy or pecking party?


The frenzied Occupyists and their irrational bigotry against the wealthiest 1%, or banks, or stock-brokers, or somebody, seem animalistic to me. It's as if a message flashed in the heads of this gang of worthless bums, and they all decided simultaneously to gang up on a chosen, designated class of individuals. There's no more rationality to it than to the Nazis' selection of Jews as their designated victims, or (more aptly) to the Soviets' selection of the bourgeoisie, and religious believers, and "kulaks," and foreigners, and Jews, etc., etc.

The Occupyists seem to be having a "pecking party." I don't know if that's a real phenomenon or not -- it may be a jokey piece of folk lore, like cow-tipping. But as the term was explained in the movie "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest," a pecking party occurs when a barnyard full of chickens decides to gang up on one hen and peck it to death (possibly because they see a spot of blood on it already). They just arbitrarily select that one hen and all torment it to death.

Or maybe you could use the analogy of a sharks' feeding frenzy. Either way, the Occupyists' choice of wealthy people to blame for all the trouble in the world, is as mindless as a pecking party. It's vicious, malicious, brutish, and at the same time sanctimonious and conceited.

The Occupyists are sanctimonious guttersnipes.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Affirmative-Action Lending Crashed The Housing Market


What really caused the housing-industry debacle? Affirmative-action mortgage lending, that's what.

The government demanded that lenders increase the percentage of blacks that had houses. (I intentionally say "had," not "owned," houses.) Phony accusations of "redlining" made by black pressure groups gave Congress the excuse they wanted to browbeat and arm-twist banks and mortgage houses.

This story is new, but admit it -- we all knew all along that our own federal government strong-armed lenders into creating the housing crisis:

 

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis  
    by Paul Sperry, Investor's Business Daily,  Oct. 31, 2011

[In 1994] the federal government declared war on an enemy - the racist lender - who officials claimed was to blame for differences in home ownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders: to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties....

[T]he ruling would be used by the agencies as a fair-lending enforcement "tool," and would apply to "all lenders" -- including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies....
The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants' net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.
 When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.

(That is, they stacked the deck against the lenders, i.e., against white people whom they wanted to convict of racism, in order to justify the favoritism they wanted to institutionalize.)

Still, the study was used to support a wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards - the root cause of the mortgage crisis.

For the first time, Washington's bank regulators put racial lending at the top of their checklist. Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed in an era of frenzied financial mergers and acquisitions. HUD threatened to deny them access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it controlled. And the Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as racists in the press.

The government really put on a full-court press to get lenders to give mortgages to blacks -- any blacks. The arm-twisting was severe, and no lender could stand up to it. All they could do was hedge their bets by inventing mortgage-based "financial instruments" to try to sell off some of their risk and exposure.

In other words, they knew they were making loans to black deadbeats; so if they aggregated those "sub-prime" or sub-standard loans -- if the  piled them higher and deeper -- maybe the stinking pile would look attractive to some other investor, also known as the "greater fool" (i.e., the bigger sap than yourself, whom you sell something to).

But who made them issue those stinking piles of loans in the first place? Our benevolent Uncle Sam.

The whole process fits precisely the definition of affirmative action, which is: giving things to minorities that other people have to qualify for, or earn, by meeting objective standards and relevant qualifications. The rules, the qualifications, the standards have to be suspended for blacks -- so our own government tells us. And that's so, even if affirmative action crashes the whole economy.

The sub-prime crisis was caused by mandated affirmative action in lending. It's sacrificialism: we are supposed to sacrifice our whole country for the sake of racial politics.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Buying Into Other People's Delusions


I have heard people lately referring to Chaz Bono as "he", "him", etc. That always sounds a jarring note to me; it hits a clinker. I just can't conceive of a female human, however surgically altered, as anything but a female, i.e., "she" or "her."

Do people have so little intellectual rigor that they are able to subscribe to any belief other people foist on them? I.e., can they be made to buy into other people's delusions just by being told they have to?

If Chaz Bono split her arms and legs lengthwise, so that she ended up with eight limbs rather than four, would we hear people on TV referring to "Chaz Bono, octopus"? Splitting her limbs wouldn't make her an octopus, and any constructive or reconstructive surgery she might have doesn't make her a man. She is what God made her -- a female. Whatever the mental quirks she may have that cause her to reject that truth, we should not buy into her delusion.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789101718Next »